I was amused and even a bit saddened while reading Peggy Fletcher Stack’s most recent article on media made myrtars who have publicly criticized the Church for their life’s problems. In an article deceptively entitled “LDS Church disciplines musician”, Ms. Stack marshals an array of misrepresentations and some outright falsehoods to support such a ridiculous conclusion. (Update 2/25/08 9:18 a.m.) I just checked the Tribune website and the Tribune editors have apparently changed the article headline now to read “Fallout from debate over gays leads musician to leave LDS Church.” Seems the Tribune is backpedaling just a bit now.

Ms. Stack’s article begins with a very nice photo of the Danzig’s a very good looking couple, and sets the stage for their activism by recounting how they sat silently by while the LDS Church leaders cleaned house with the September Six–though she remains silent about the fact the six went off the deep end in publicly criticizing Church policy and doctrine:

Danzig said nothing in 1993 when church officials charged six well-known Mormon scholars and intellectuals with apostasy for their writings or speeches about LDS issues. He kept quiet when Brigham Young University fired history professor Steven Epperson, a member of Danzig’s Mormon congregation, for serving the homeless rather than attending church.

And, why would he do anything other than keep quiet, if in fact he was as Stack described, a gentle musician who loved and served the Church, and not a Mormon activist? Interestingly, Ms. Stack does not disclose that Mr. Epperson, who is now apparently a Unitarian Universalist minister, was actually dismissed from BYU because he was not attending Church, paying tithing, and did not qualify for a temple recommend–which is required to teach at BYU. And, as his letter to BYU administrators reflects, was actually quite bitter toward the Church and BYU.

But, Danzig, the gentle musician was about to become less gentle and more of a “Mormon activist” because he could no longer remain silent at the outrage that was to follow:

But in 2006, Danzig finally felt compelled to protest. BYU adjunct professor Jeffrey Nielsen lost his job for arguing in a The Salt Lake Tribune column that the LDS Church was wrong to oppose gay marriage and to enlist Mormon support for a constitutional amendment against it.

The dismissal appalled Danzig, who had explored the questions of homosexuality while pursuing a graduate degree in clinical social work.

The gentle Danzig let fly his feelings about such an injustice with the following letter to the editor, published in the Salt Lake Tribune 6/14/06:

As a member of the LDS Church, returned missionary and member of the Orchestra at Temple Square, I am appalled at the intellectual tyranny that our leadership has exercised through the summary dismissal of Jeffrey Nielsen from his teaching position at Brigham Young University for speaking his mind in an op-ed published June 4 in The Tribune. I was troubled that my church requested that I violate my own conscience to write in support of an amendment (marriage) I feel is contrary to the Constitution and to the gospel of Christ.

I am even more discouraged to see how they deal with an honest difference of opinion I wish to express to Jeffrey Nielsen that I admire his courage and that I stand with him. I hope that rank-and-file members of the church as well as members of the lay clergy who also find this troubling will have the courage to step forward and let themselves be known. To do anything else would be to hide in the shadow of an injustice.

OK, let’s fact check just a bit, as both Mr. Danzig and Ms. Stack are playing just a bit fast and loose with them. Mr. Danzig’s letter expresses discouragement at honest differences of opinion, yet in his letter he refers to the LDS Church leadership as intellectual tyrants. Now, he doesn’t specify to which leadership her refers; however, I can only assume without further clarification that he’s talking about at the time, Gordon B. Hinckely, Thomas S. Monson, James E. Faust, and the entire Quorum of the Twelve. Now, I’m not familiar with the inner workings of the Temple Square Orchestra, but it seems to me that publicly calling the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve Apostles intellectual tyrants is not likely a good way to retain first chair viola. If this is an expression of an honest difference of opinion, one can just imagine a harsh disagreement.

Let’s not forget Mr. Nielsen’s role in all this horrific injustice. Mr. Danzig claims, without any supporting facts whatsoever, that the top LDS leadership had some role in Mr. Nielsen’s dismissal. Rather, it appears Mr. Nielsen’s contract was simply not renewed by those who were in authority over him at the philosophy department at BYU. To suggest that Mr. Nielsen’s travails made their way to the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve’s Thursday Temple meeting is simply absurd.

And, what of Jeffrey Nielsen? Who was he, and what did he do? Well, Mr. Nielsen was, at the time, an occasional part time faculty member at BYU’s philosophy department–not an adjunct professor as Mr. Stack writes. I previously posted about Mr. Nielsen, here. In short, Mr. Nielsen publicly labeled the same LDS Church leadership, their position on gay marriage, and their call for a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage troubling, immoral, discriminatory, and based on fear and superstition. Again, when you are employed at the Church owned and supported University, even as a part time faculty member, there are certain rules and regulations by which you are bound.

The Salt Lake Tribune has a history of making Mr. Nielsen a martyr for their anti-LDS causes (particularly homosexuality as is obvious from this article). You can read more or their absurd coverage about Mr. Neilsen here, here, and here. Yes, the Salt Lake Tribune had a field day with Jeffrey Nielsen and the Church, comparing him to Thoreau and Martin Luther. So, it is really not a surprise that when Ms. Stack stumbled upon Mr. Danzig and his idolization of Mr. Nielsen that she would perpetuate the fantasy.

What is odd, however, is the title of the article? What LDS officials have disciplined the Danzigs, and what discipline?

Within a week, LDS officials contacted Danzig with concerns about the letter. They suspended him from the orchestra and for the next year, he and, ultimately his wife, defended their loyalty, faith and actions. No amount of persuasion or pleading could convince these ecclesiastical leaders they meant well.

Ultimately, the Danzigs moved out of their Levan house and, in December, resigned their membership in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints rather than face excommunication.

It seems pretty clear that it was the Danzigs who resigned their membership, rather than LDS officials having disciplined them. What is most telling, however, is Ms. Stack’s link to an anti-Mormon blog (run by an individual who has left the Church, but can’t seem to leave it alone) which has published the Danzig’s own account of their issues with the Church. It seems pretty clear where their loyalties lie at this point.

What cannot be over emphasized is the fact that the Tribune is giving only one side of the story, the Danzigs. The Church does not and will not comment on such matters:

All of the leaders declined to comment or offer any written accounts of their actions. “Communications of this nature between church leaders and members are considered confidential,” Trotter said.

Given the tenor and tone of the article, the Danzigs complaints, and their reliance on an anti-Mormon blog for their own story, speaks volumes about the Danzig’s own bias and lack of credibility.

The Church, on its own website has responded to the Tribune article and rebutted the false accusations, including the ridiculous idea that the Church disciplined them:

SALT LAKE CITY24 February 2008 Church leaders are always saddened when an individual, whether through his or her actions or personal choices, decides to leave the Church. A welcoming hand of fellowship is always extended to those who wish to return at anytime.

Every organization, religious or secular, has to determine where its boundaries begin and where they end. The Apostle Paul said that the original Church was organized to help members to be “no more children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine.” (Ephesians 4:14)

Members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints are encouraged to study, learn and ask questions in their quest for knowledge. Gordon B. Hinckley, 15th president of the Church said: “This Church came about as a result of intellectual curiosity. We believe in education … we expect them (Church members) to think. We expect them to investigate. We expect them to use their minds and dig deeply for knowledge in all fields.”

However, it is not acceptable when their digging and questioning leads to public opposition against doctrine Church leaders are obliged to uphold. That doesn’t mean that Church leaders don’t listen and consider opposing views. Quite the contrary. Local bishops and stake presidents (congregational leaders) love and are concerned about all members of the flock. This is the purpose of counseling provided by local Church leaders who know and care for each individual in their congregations.

Honest disagreements are not the same as public advocacy of positions contrary to those of the Church. When disagreements arise, the principle of the Church is that local leaders discuss these matters with members with love and concern. This was the case with Peter Danzig.

On 23 February 2008 The Salt Lake Tribune posted an article about Mr. Danzig who was a member of the Church’s Orchestra at Temple Square. According to the story, in June of 2006 Mr. Danzig published a letter-to-the-editor in the Tribune (and letters in other local newspapers) encouraging members to oppose Church leaders on the issue of same gender marriage.

In his Tribune letter-to-the-editor, Mr. Danzig said he “was troubled that my church requested I violate my own conscience to write in support of an amendment I feel is contrary to the constitution and to the gospel of Christ.” In reality Church leaders had asked members to write to their senators with their personal views regarding the federal amendment opposing same gender marriage, and did not request support or opposition to the amendment.

Initially Orchestra leaders met with Mr. Danzig to see if his public advocacy of this issue could be reconciled. Finding no resolution, they contacted the Office of the First Presidency, and were instructed to refer the matter to Mr. Danzig’s local Church leaders, as Church protocol requires. Mr. Danzig was asked to take a leave of absence from the orchestra until the matter had been resolved.

For more than a year and a half, Mr. Danzig counseled with his local bishop and stake president regarding same gender marriage and other Church doctrines. Unfortunately he was not able to reconcile his personal beliefs with the doctrine Church leaders are charged to maintain by divine mandate.

In December 2007, Mr. Danzig voluntarily withdrew his membership in the Church by his own formal written request. He was not officially disciplined by the Church as the Tribune article indicated.

The Church normally keeps this type of communication confidential. However, the Church felt compelled to defend its position when Mr. Danzig made this information public and because of the blatant, inappropriate editorializing by the Salt Lake Tribune in what was purported to be a news story.

Again, this is a sad story. No one wins. The Danzig family has been torn apart, and in the process they have made affirmative efforts to hurt the community of Saints in their own hurt and anger. Is the 15 minutes of fame on the pages of the Salt Lake Tribune and anti-Mormon Blogs really worth it in the long run?

Share this:

Like this:

Related

43 Responses to “Peter and Mary Danzig: More Media Made Martyrs”

Marriage is a basic civil right that should be attainable by all Americans. For the truth about gay marriage check out our trailer. Produced to educate & defuse the controversy it has a way of opening closed minds & provides some sanity on the issue.

Ardis, I’m not sure how you jumped from A to B. I read into Peggy’s article what I wanted, of course. Expressing a difference of opinion does not constitute calling you a liar. I’m sad that you drew such a conclusion.

And of course, if you have stronger information about Peggy’s article, I would be pleased to hear it. I’m as liable to learn something as the next person.

My comment was rather simply intended to express scepticsm about your assertion. Do I have to be a journalist to suspect that department editors know what headlines their columns will be printed under?

Guy, I’m not sure what to make of the headline change. Perhaps it signifies exactly what Ardis asserted — that Peggy did not write the headline, and moved to correct the false insinuation. Perhaps it means that Peggy had a change of heart upon reading the response from the Church.

I don’t claim to know what other people are thinking, but it does present some intriguing opportunities for speculation (and further sniping! :->)

Yeah. I have no idea how newspapers come up with their headlines, and I know Arids’ opinion on that is more informed than mine as she does write for the Tribune; however, I do know that the headline that started with the article was completely unsupportable even with the most charitable reading of the article. I was pleased to see the Church push back on some of these media martyrs. And, I’m pleased to see the Tribune back down, at least on the headline.

As for Peggy, while she has written some questionable articles about the Church, some of which I have commented on over here, I also think she has done some good work relating to the Church as well. I thought Peggy’s coverage of President Hinckely’s death and the aftermath were particularly good, and I said so.

I think PFS generally does a good job of covering the Church. The Church can hardly expect an independent newspaper to always give praising reviews of what it does.

In the Danzig case, there is some very disheartening and disappointing behavior by mostly the director of the choir at Temple Square but also to some extent by the Danzig’s bishop, if Danzig’s full account is to be taken at face value — and at this stage there doesn’t seem to be any reason not to do that or to impugn Mr. or Mrs. Danzig’s honesty or credibility.

I will say that Mr. Danzig’s inclusion of the episode with his father being accused of stealing stuff from the archives seemed irrelevant and tangential — more prejudicial than probative, in lawyer-speak.

I must also say that I was not very impressed with the LDS.org commentary on PFS’s article and the Danzig episode. My preference would be for the Church not to comment on such things, or rather for the Church not to selectively comment on some incidents and not others. And, in contrast to other excellent recent postings at LDS.org, the rejoinder to PFS’s article was poorly written and too reactionary — too much pathos for that type of a publication. Hopefully there will be more introspection before future such rebuttals appear on LDS.org.

I think PFS generally does a good job of covering the Church. The Church can hardly expect an independent newspaper to always give praising reviews of what it does.

Yes, I would agree that for the most part PFS does a good job covering the Church. Feminism and homosexuality; however, reveal her bias.

I will say that Mr. Danzig’s inclusion of the episode with his father being accused of stealing stuff from the archives seemed irrelevant and tangential — more prejudicial than probative, in lawyer-speak.

Agreed.

In the Danzig case, there is some very disheartening and disappointing behavior by mostly the director of the choir at Temple Square but also to some extent by the Danzig’s bishop, if Danzig’s full account is to be taken at face value — and at this stage there doesn’t seem to be any reason not to do that or to impugn Mr. or Mrs. Danzig’s honesty or credibility.

I disagree:

The Danzigs’ credibility is absolutely questionable. I covered some of this in my initial post, including but not limited to:

1. Posting their story on an openly anti-Mormon Blog;

2. Calling the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve intellectual tyrants, which is absolutely absurd on its face;

3. Falsely implying the Church required its members to support any particular amendment in a particular fashion;

5. Falsely implying Jeffrey Nielsen’s actions reflected an honest difference of opinion (see my extensive discussion of this in the main and other posts)

6. Why you would believe at face value the Danzigs’ version of the facts, as published on an anti-Mormon website, and question the actions of a bishop, without any information about his actions other than from the Danzigs is, well, simply incredible to me.

I must also say that I was not very impressed with the LDS.org commentary on PFS’s article and the Danzig episode. My preference would be for the Church not to comment on such things, or rather for the Church not to selectively comment on some incidents and not others. And, in contrast to other excellent recent postings at LDS.org, the rejoinder to PFS’s article was poorly written and too reactionary — too much pathos for that type of a publication. Hopefully there will be more introspection before future such rebuttals appear on LDS.org.

I disagree. I wish the Church would be more forceful in rebutting what are clearly false and misleading statements by these self-proclaimed media martyrs and set the record straight. It is clear the Church pushing back on the Tribune’s story forced them to change their misleading and outright false original headline (see the pain part of this post and the comments above).

The LDS.org rebuttal did not address the behavior of the Orchestra director, which was for me the most troubling aspect of this story, as reported by Mr. Danzig. I wonder what could justify it.

You wrote “Why you would believe at face value the Danzigs’ version of the facts, as published on an anti-Mormon website, and question the actions of a bishop, without any information about his actions other than from the Danzigs is, well, simply incredible to me.”

I’ve read everything there is out there (that I know of) on numerous blogs and forums, and now in the newspaper, and I just don’t see the Danzigs approaching this situation in bad faith. I don’t see any reason to infer the worst from what Mr. Danzig wrote about his experience. I note that he invited the Orchestra director and the others involved to comment on his description of the events and instead of receiving feedback contradicting his version, was threatened with discipline if he “went public” with the outline. That’s hard for me to understand, even giving all appropriate benefit of the doubt to all Church actors involved in this situation. It would have taken heroic levels of patience and long suffering to withstand the type of treatment they received from the Orchestra director. I hope that we as a people can learn to treat each other better.

Right. I understand that we have to take the Danzigs’ bias against the Church into account now that they have left the Church based on their negative views. But I don’t get the sense they are describing what happened in bad faith.

But I don’t get the sense they are describing what happened in bad faith.

I agree. It’s been my experience, however, that what people hear and what people say are two different things. How many times have we ever tried to explain to someone what we meant when they have misunderstood us? I wonder what the bishop of choir director would say in their defense? Unfortunately, we will never get to know.

I have several reservations in all of this pertaining to behavior of those representing the choir and orchestra. I am very familiar with church discipline (an old bishop) and believe from all that I have read that this matter could have been resolved by the parties representing the Choir and Orchestra as well as the local Church leaders in Levan to the satisfaction of all. I believe the Danzigs were forced into a corner from which Peter chose the only way out he could given his experience and that of his father. The Church was not at risk here and faced no threat from these two volunteer musicians. They were not undermining the orchestra.

The two Choir administrators hold no ecclesiastical authority. Who were they, Orrin Hatch’s buddies Stan Parrish and Mac Christensen? Danzig to his credit does not reveal names. I believe they or whomever shoulder the blame for pushing back instead of bending with a little more compassion and understanding. They are both businessmen and know their way around a P&L sheet. Regrettably, the whole business was not handled with more compassion and PFS would have had nothing to write about in her anti Mormon article or newspaper which I happen to enjoy, both her writing and the paper.

Well, I suppose we’re even. I have reservations in all of this pertaining to behavior of of the Danzigs, calling the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve Apostles intellectual tyrants, among other behaviors.

I have felt curious and concerned about this headline-change matter all day. Now I wonder if there is more to it than meets the eye. As I said, I can learn new things.

I feel terrible that Ardis assumed I was accusing her of deliberate misrepresentation. I had no such intent in mind, and am perturbed that she apparently felt offended.

In fact Ron Scott offered the same explanation some time back, when I complained about the headline of a story under his by-line. So it wasn’t altogether a new idea to me.

Perhaps Ardis, being in the know, or those who joined with her to assure us that someone else other than the author of a story traditionally composes headlines, could indulge me further.

– Did the same person or group apply the new headline?
– How would we suppose they decided the original headline needed changing?
– Does anyone know what headline appeared with the dead-tree version of the story?
– How do the mysterious nonentity headline-composers find inspiration to match editorial content?
– Does headline selection make a connection with normal editorial tone and content of the newspaper?

If nothing else, this might be an interesting way for the uninformed (me) to learn more about the production of “news”. My only other informative source was a dramatic film, “Absence of Malice”, with Paul Newman and Sally Fields — a superbly entertaining film, but not necessarily objective reference material.

Guy, I suppose, given the benefit of doubt, the phrase “intellectual tyrants” might not constitute serious opprobrium, at least in certain circles. Perhaps it was intended in a purely light-hearted spirit. Who can say? Danzig may use the same label for all his closest friends.

Like you I’m curious about the headline change. I’m not certain we’ll ever know who or why the decision was made–other than the obvious, the Church did not discipline the Danzigs.

As for your benefit of doubt, I see no reason to allow for a benefit of doubt. These folks publicly, deliberately supported Jeffrey Nielsen, who made even more inflammatory remarks about The Brethren, and their interpretation of doctrine. This is not about the Church cracking down on free speech. This is about so-called intellectuals who think they know more than The Brethren on matters of doctrine. This is about those who have a political agenda to enlighten all of the rest of us about “gay rights” and the like. The Church is not and has never been a democracy.

From the Equality blog I linked to in the story, it appears Mr. Danzig published his story at postmormon.org, another anti-Mormon website. And, while I’m sorry to see them leave the Church, it apparently was the decision that worked best for them. Now that they have left the Church, it does not seem, however, they intend to leave it alone, like so many who leave under similar circumstances.

I write newspaper headlines (among other things) for a living, and my best guess about the headline situation is that some editor for the newspaper’s online site wrote the headline after a somewhat cursory read-through of the article. The reporter almost certainly had nothing to do with it.

And if the Tribune’s online site is like many, the headline probably wasn’t reviewed by anyone else other than its writer before it became visible to the world.

The headline was blatantly wrong, although probably not written that way for sinister reasons. Sometimes people make mistakes out of incompetence or haste (I’ve written my share of bad headlines), so I wouldn’t attribute any particular motive to the error. Then as soon as the error was discovered, it was corrected, probably by a higher-up editor who alerted to the problem by someone aware of the firestorm (or perhaps the reporter herself).

But something we’ll never know is what the reaction to the story would have been had the headline been accurate from the beginning. Much of the non-LDS blogosphere reaction I’ve seen is based on the headline more than the details of the story. The focus of the story as written was on what Mr. Danzig did and felt than on what the church did, but the headline turned that around.

Jim, my disgusted reaction to your comment was due to the ease with which, without evidence other than uninformed opinion, you flatly contradicted my statement. Phrasing it as your being surprised to hear that, or challenging me for my own evidence, would have been far more diplomatic.

Headline writing is a skill, as gfe knows, and as all of us might guess if we think about it. Check the sports headlines and count how many ways there are to say “X beat Y.” Headlines have to be short, use words to attract readers, and be accurate — not easy when they abbreviate a 2,000-word argument down to a four-word headline. The people who make the arguments aren’t always the best ones to distil the gist.

I haven’t compared — don’t have the original text to compare — the first online article with the one that is currently posted. It is possible — but I don’t know this happened — that the story was updated during the day. As the Trib’s Reader Advocate frequently notes in her weekly column, the website is dynamic and major stories (even ones of major interest, like the Danzigs’, even if the story itself isn’t all that major) are often updated as new information comes in or as errors are corrected. That is sometimes signalled by a new headline — “new” story, new title, more apt to be noticed by a return visitor to the website.

[…] gang leaders, doesn’t even appear to be Mormon at all: Peter Danzig. Remember Peter? He was that gentle musician compelled to turn religious activist over the “gay rights” issue. He and his wife, […]

I know I am coming in without having read everything so far, and may be somewhat repetitive.
However, I had to take issue with the Steven Esperson statement in the quoted Tribune Article.
I fully support President Bateman’s policies to only retain as faculty those church members who were in good standing in their ward.
I had not realized that it was 1996 when Esperson left BYU. I had a professor at BYU who refered to one of Esperson’s books as “intellectually dishonest”.
The goal to have a faculty that works to build up the university instead of one that spends thier time and energy fighting the administration is a good one. How can BYU be a Zion University if its faculty does not have any amount of desire to build unity.
We need to put more value on the things of God and not let the standards of the university be merely those of the various professions.
This is the key idea that President Bateman brought to the university. Since I began as a student there in 1999, I have never fully analized the phylospohy of President Bateman or seen how his actions changed the whole structure and work of the university.
There is a long way to go until the students have a Zion attitude, and ever the professors all far short of that. Some are still to willing to speak ill of the administration, but I think there are no longer faculty members like there were in the mid-1990s who deliberately go around seeking to embarrass the administration and to contradict what they do.
The fact that Esperson after leaving BYU became a unitarian minister and was one of the lead plantifs in the Main Street Law Suit indicates to me that the issues were much deeper on many fronts than the Tribune writer states. The fact that someone would call his book “intelectually dishonest” tells me that there were at least some in his deparment who felt that he was failing as much in academic matters as he was in religious matters.

Hello, I am Peter Danzig. I wanted to present a couple of clarifications that may assist you and your readers in your analysis.

I never saw myself as describing any LDS leaders as “intellectual tyrants” rather, I referred to specific actions taken by LDS church leadership. I had no intention of calling anyone names or denigrating anyone’s character. Obviously I also interpreted their call to support the federal marriage amendment via letters to my senator as asking me to do something I disagreed with. Thankfully they later clarified that they had asked no such thing and only wanted me to express my opinion to my senators. In hindsight, (particularly given their tremendous level of support for California’s Proposition 8) I think a reasonable person could understand that I may have misinterpreted the letter read over the pulpit regarding the federal marriage amendment.

If I remember correctly, the Tribune published the letter Jeffrey Nielson was sent notifying him of the decision not to renew his contract. My memory is that the letter indicated involvement at the general authority level. It is possible I am mistaken, but it seemed rather painfully obvious from what I read that this had been the case (at least according to the BYU official who wrote the letter).

I was a little surprised at the headline myself, (not because I had not been disciplined… in fact, I was immediately suspended from my calling and repeatedly threatened with excommunication) but because it seemed to imply that I had been excommunicated when in actuality I had resigned.

Regarding the “anti-Mormon” blog on which my story was shared… I initially shared my account on the Post Mormon community forum. This should not be terribly startling to anyone as I had resigned my membership in the LDS church and was looking for some form of community support for what had become a very painful journey. I am not sure what other community would have been interested or helpful to me on such a journey. Interested parties asked if they could reprint what I had posted and I gave permission for this to anyone who asked. Certainly there was no intention on my part to specifically seek out an “anti-Mormon” host for the account.

I informed my LDS leaders and a family member informed the Church PR department of what was in the article about us before it was published. It was my understanding that Peggy Fletcher Stack did so as well. It seems unfortunate that they did not make any clarifications or raise any objections with any of us before the article was published, but only after it garnered unfavorable attention. I should clarify. My stake president indicated that my account was factual and did not ask for any corrections, but told me I would be excommunicated if I shared it outside of my immediate family.

Once the article was published, the LDS church reversed course and released the statement which you quoted here. While I do not agree with some of the specifics in their statement, I have long felt the LDS church has a right to tell their side of the story, and had attempted to include as much of that as possible (as well as indicate my own biases) in my own account.

I am happy to answer any questions you may have and appreciate your time and attention, as well as your willingness to grapple with issues such as this.

the majority of people in the state voted that they did not want same sex marriage, a contriversial issue at best. while it is true the church’s members are a part of the sates voting population, is it so hard to believe that a christian religion opposes a “perversion” of gods intended family unit? i mean honestly, it just common sense these days. people have the ability and right to choose what they do with there lives, people also forget that the people in opposition to there desires also have the ability to choose what they want to do. the people decided no, and some people just cant accept being a part of a whole. everyone cannot conform to two opposing ideas…

im sorry if i came off a little strong or vague or just plain stupid, but it seems like a awefull lot of controversy for a issue that just shouldnt have happened…

Peter, I’ve read your comments, but have refrained from responding myself–partly perhaps because there is essentially no way for me to confirm I am actually interacting with Peter Danzig rather than someone who is just posting under your name. I would be interested in watching the episode you reference in comment #34 above. Can you post a link to it, if it is available on line? I may have further questions at that point. Thanks for your comments.

1. I’m disappointed that the dialog between you and Peter didn’t continue. I would like to see that.

2. It is entirely possible that one can be a believer and feel conflicted about issues like same-sex marriage. I know that I am, and I know many people who are good, faithful members of the church who are.

3. I think it is a little ironic that we can feel justified in speaking on behalf of the church while condemning those who express their concerns publicly. If we really believe it is an issue between the individual and the church, why not just let it be?

4. People who are concerned about what they observe have darn few mechanisms to find others they can safely converse with. Mainstream LDS tend to be quick to label someone as “apostate” or “anti-Mormon”. Believe me, there’s lots and lots of middle ground inhabited by believing, caring people. Conflicted doesn’t necessarily mean confused or on the road to apostasy.

We are all floating an a miniature orb in an immense blackness, blacker than you can imagine. Around us are more galaxies than there are grains of beach sand on Earth. Each galaxy has for itself billions of stars and, we now learn, other worlds like ours. All coming into and out of existence.

What if Joseph Smith was telling the truth about the nature of family as it relates to being god? I don’t mean to go Jean-Luc Godard on you, but clearly we are missing the point.

I don’t get it. Is it not intellectual tyranny to punish people for publicly expressing honest differences of opinion?

As far as I can tell, the ‘honest difference of opinion’ in question concerns the views on homosexuality. The ‘intellectual tyranny’ in question is the attempts by the LDS Church to silence people who hold these honest differences of opinion. I don’t see a contradiction here.

Additionally, I think this blog post commits the error (several times) that one is biased simply by holding a certain point of view.

For example, if Mr. Danzig thinks that the church’s actions are tantamount to intellectual tyranny, then he has come to a negative conclusion about the church, and is therefore biased against the church. Thus, the mere action of concluding something negative about the church betrays an anti-Mormon bias.

The same reasoning is used with the so-called anti-Mormon blog. Now, I’ve never read that blog, and I don’t know anything about it. However, I know that the term anti-Mormon, in LDS circles, is a pejorative term, used almost exclusively with the intent of impugning the credibility of the person or source being described. In describing the Equality Time blog, Mr. Murray uses the term ‘anti-Mormon’ in obvious hope of achieving this very effect. Since the blog disagrees with Mormonism, they have an anti-Mormon bias and therefore cannot be trusted.

The end result of this reasoning is that the only sources that are trusted are pro-Mormon sources. Ironically, this attitude fosters an untrustworthy pro-Mormon bias, and so I am automatically skeptical of people who hold it.

I don’t know Mr. Danzig, and I don’t know anything about the blog in question. It’s quite possible that they do hold an untrustworthy anti-Mormon bias. However, in order to convince me of the fact, it would take a lot more effort on Mr. Murray’s part than simply pointing out that they openly disagree with the Church.

Overally, this blog post looks like a smear piece, full of impotent attempts at impugning the credibility of a dissenter.

swf (shock wave flash) is Macromedia (now acquired by ADOBE company)’s Flash animation design software’s proprietary format, is a support vector and bitmap graphics animation file format is widely used in web design, animation, etc. field, swf file also commonly referred to Flash files. flash to mp4 tool swf (shock wave flash) is Macromedia (now acquired by ADOBE company)’s Flash animation design software’s proprietary format, is a support vector and bitmap graphics animation file format is widely used in web design, animation, etc. field, swf file also commonly referred to Flash files. free swf to mp4 SWF is a popular format for multimedia. Most often, this format can be seen in online animated graphics and online games. Even though it is very widespread, some computer users choose to convert SWF into other formats. In our daily life, we have some great SWF videos and need to convert SWF to MP4 in order to view them on portable device such as iPod, iPhone and iPad.

Speed: With the technology of Lower-Playback-Speed, there is no need to add or cut off frames and the original frame duration can be kept perfectly. Thus you are able to retain the original effects of the Flash in the generated video and enjoy them on your portable devices. best flash to mp4 tool MP4:MPEG-4 is a patented collection of methods defining compression of audio and visual (AV) digital data. Uses of MPEG-4 include compression of AV data for web (streaming media) and CD distribution, voice (telephone, videophone) and broadcast television applications.MPEG-4 absorbs many of the features of MPEG-1 and MPEG-2 and other related standards. swf to mp4 All along, people say flash dying, when html5 appear, there are rumors that the flash html5 about to be replaced. But that does not seem so, flash has been continuously updated, chrome and ie have strengthened support for flash, and in my opinion has not supported by Apple’s flash is only just.